Skip to main content

About your Search

WHUT (Howard University Television) 1
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)
Feb 8, 2013 5:30pm PST
show, lead by president obama? >> ultimately the key decision makers in american foreign policy are the same people. which is the president and its key advisors on the national security council. and the issue is not whether or not the advocates in the state department or the pentagon are there. i think at some point the united states government and the white house have to make a decision that syria is an actual danger to america's national security interests. it is not something we can wash our hands from. and there are serious dangers and implications to the united states and the president actually to ask its national security team for realistic options that then he request gather his team and debate and decide about. there hasn't, i think, been a serious debate even with thunited stasgovernment as to what might be our three top options what are the costs and benefits of each. and if we were to pursue one of them, how would we do it. >> is there a legitimate argument that this destabilizes turkey to some degree, an important country to the united states, and a nato ally, andrew. >>
Feb 8, 2013 6:00pm PST
an efficacy review but it would make us all feel better. >> another tough foreign policy lesson. we learned yesterday, mark, for another congressional hearing, that there had been a division in the administration and this is what rain suarez-- suarez's discussion was b we learned that secretary clinton, then secretary of state, secretary of defense panetta, the cia director, all were in favor of the u.s. sending arm to its rebels in syria. the president overruled it significance of this that we are finding it out now. >> and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. you had across-the-board and these are not groups that walk in lock step. state department and cia and defense the fact they came up first of all the fact that it's out in the open, i mean neither general damp tee nor secretary panetta was particularly eager to talk about it. but it was, it did give us a look into this administration, the argument at the white house among the national security people was that it would strengthen groups they felt. the arms would, inside the syria who were radical, islamists that were pos
Feb 9, 2013 2:00am GMT
. discussion the same council on trade and to some extent on foreign policy. where have a link up a far left further the phone of counsel and you. on the full range of global issues that were discussed within the you. and we're very much engaged in driving forward the single market. so the key principles of the prime minister speech can think i'm pensiveness flexibility. are absolutely ones that. officials are working on all the time. that is part of the coalition government approach. they are mentation of the referendum commitment the problems ago is for the conservative party and. and a future. parliament. and officials of that time subject is whether it's the government that really hasn't made much difference. and this is where they would have been doing anyway. well the key difference in the process peter's a statement about what we will be doing in the few tower. will approach in the future and shaping that debate. for the future. but it doesn't change the work of our officials are single market. on all the issues that on them ok no time frame a favorite politics the european parli
Feb 9, 2013 1:00am EST
, i'm tavis smiley. join me next time for a conversation with martha raditz on the new foreign policy challenges facing the president. that is next time. we will see you then. >> there is a saying that dr. king had that said there is always the right time to do the right thing. i just try to live my life every day by doing the right thing. we know that we are only halfway to completely eliminate hunger, and we have a lot of work to do. walmart committed $2 billion to fighting hunger in the u.s. as we work tr,etog whee can stamp hunger out. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> be more. >> be more.
Feb 9, 2013 11:30am PST
shrinking global community - on foreign policy, on veterans, serving our military families and our service members. >> gabbard joins illinois' tammy duckworth as the first two female combat veterans sworn into office. gabbard takes that responsibility seriously. >> it's kind of amazing that it's taken this long because we've had women who've raised their hands and volunteered to serve on the frontlines dating all the way back to the civil war. and the fact that we have over 1.8 million women veterans across the country, women who are leaving their families, leaving their jobs, leaving school behind to go and serve our country every single day is a story that hasn't been told enough. women face unique challenges in military service but also bring unique contributions that also need to be talked about. so that's one thing that i look forward to being able to do is to be a voice for this huge constituency of selfless heroes that hasn't really had a firsthand voice or a strong voice here in congress >> and for gabbard, being in congress is about serving the people, not about partisan bickering
Feb 8, 2013 7:00pm EST
i'm looking at a republican whose foreign policy views are very popular with the likes of pat buchanan, might have some second thoughts about that. nice a guy as pat is, his foreign policy view ace little bit crazy. chuck hagel obviously holds some views, has empathies that are out of the mainstream of the republicans and democrats. we have two parts that agree on a very aggressive interventionist policy. >> besides president obama, i admit the president usually gets his own. i don't see anybody laying down for this guy. and i read today, okay, i read pretty your stuff. i read it from a lot of stuff. he is refusing to disclose his financials. particularly his foreign financials. i don't know how you get through under those circumstances. >> the democrats will support him. the more important issue for them is barack obama. barack obama is still the number one issue in politics today. and democrats need his support to win in 2014. so they're going to stick with whatever obama wants. it really is up to the president to find a way gracefully to bow out of this and seau know i've g
FOX Business
Feb 9, 2013 4:00am EST
managements of foreign policy. one low level, and a different one strategic going out of the white house, and many thinks the white house had at the time objectives not really informed at the security council on the one hand or the state department. lou: let me ask you just straight up, yes or no. were you disappointed or disgusted at the conduct of the president of the united states and the secretary of state? >> i think that by trying to put this on the video, this was a diversion from what was happening on the ground, and they tried not to inform the american public before the elections. i think that's the con consensuf most of us, those of us who know what the jihadists were trying to do. lou: thank you for being with us. more on the rising tensionings in -- tensions in the middle east and president obama's response with the a-team next. the northeast hit by another big storm. in fact, a record storm. the blizzard update is next. bush whacked or hacked, however you want to say it, the bush family photos and secret e-mails of the former first family released on the internet. the
Feb 9, 2013 5:15pm EST
in the region. we have made an important foreign policy shift, both in terms of process and engagement in the region. it is grounded for the first time in our history in the bedrock of consent and legitimacy and many stakeholders in the making of foreign policy. this is a first for pakistan including our relationship with the united states, which is pretty much run by parliamentary guidelines. it does empower us to make decisions that are sustainable, we hope. and we look for a relationship that as long lasting and not just a function of our relationship with the united states on afghanistan as the transition out of the region. >> thank you for that. did they offer you breakfast? >> yes, they did. >> oh, ok. i was so busy taking notes. a couple of questions and i will turn it over to my colleagues. i want to ask about the impact, if any, that having john kerry as secretary of state is going to have. what is your sense of the importance, if any, of his appointment? >> i think that pakistan-u.s. relations are vital to both countries and we appreciate very much the fact that th
FOX Business
Feb 9, 2013 2:00am EST
americans who own them but the dollar, a debt and weak foreign policy. unemployment
FOX Business
Feb 8, 2013 9:00pm EST
america being unsafe, not the number of guns were americans who own them but the dollar, a debt and weak foreign policy. unemployment
Feb 9, 2013 9:00am EST
he's the author of the new book, drinking. thanks so much. >> thank you. spent the next, author and historian michael beschloss. .. and a now, it starts and moves forward and cuts us off from any access to african history, which was not what woodson in tended. and so, we obviously owe the peopleof our higher to and so we obviously of the who d those who are descended from those people who worked for 246 years for nothing. we owed them something for that, but we owe them the story of themselves. we have been asked to expect that people can survive in good, sound psychological health, on ashes and obliterated history. when i was a child in richmond, virginia, weiss to have this phrase that we used all the time. from here to timbuktu. but, nobody knew what timbucktoo was. nobody knew the meaning of the word. didn't know where it was and didn't even know it was a place. timbucktoo of course was a crossroads of commerce but it was also a site the site of one of the world's first universities of san kora which was built before the blackmore's ilk the first university in spain at sala make a and 7-eleven a.d.. and so still in timbuktu you have all of these manuscripts written between five a.d. and 15 a.d., literature and support manuscripts of the highest quality written by african and arab scholars. and we knew nothing about it. we didn't know anything about the queen of sheba who is described by this claim of sheba. she. she lived all of her life and ox him which is approximately where it ethiopia is today. that sheba was and what is now yemen, but it was shortened to the queen of sheba. but the bible describes her as a woman of blacks can but in the movie it was played by gina lola bridget and sell all of our story was taken and the plot of all of this is people have history because they need it. people developed cultures and mores and issues because they need them to stay in good health. that is how we make social progress. a great jamaican once said that living without your story, without memory is like driving without a real memory -- rearview mirror except it's more dangerous to live without your story. so the point is that we were cut off from all of that and then renamed. when i was a child we were called. no one knew what the providence was at that word, where it came from and what it was supposed to mean but it was a part of the ball that was built to separate those who were stolen and used and exploited from their african story. and so if everyone in the world has a story so did we. the second thing is for example, they have the highest crime rate in the country, violent crime rate on indian reservations. the question is, like? what awful thing happened that would cause this situation for them? the same is true in the case of african-americans and when it was all over, this awful chapter from the beginning of slavery 246 years followed by virtually a century of pnh which people were essentially forced to work for knowing him in income in the south and then legal segregation before the end of the voting rights act, that nightmare had ended and during that nightmare untold sums of lives have been wrecked and the social damage is still witnessed and so we all an acknowledgment to the fact that this is not peculiar to the united states that you don't want to acknowledge. the people of turkey don't want to acknowledge the genocide against the people of 1915. jenna does not want to acknowledge its discriminations in tibet or in western china against the uyghur people. many nations hide from their past but we owe people the truth. we owe them their history and we owed them repair and we are not doing that. not only that, we don't even want to talk about it as a society. >> host: you say that this loss of heritage is comparable to the holocaust and some of the other genocides. >> guest: the holocaust was 12 years. this was 246 years plus the century that people lost where they lost their languages. they. they lost their culture, they lost everything. many people had their severed. people lost their tongues. thomas jefferson when he was a boy at two years old had a relationship with a 14-year-old girl, sally hammonds, that he owned and wasn't from the -- we know what it would be called today. that was routine. we lost any idea of who we were. it was our past, our memory was banished and we worked ourselves to an early death. rebuilt the capital, built the white house, and doubt harvard law school which was endowed by isaac royal from the proceeds and the sale of slaves that he owned and antigua in the west indies. these things were retained so any american institution transfers the wealth that they got from the work of people who were not paid to their families and making their line rich and impoverishing those who had been stolen and used in this way. >> host: mr. robinson how far back can you trace your family's history? >> guest: i am very fortunate in that we have pictures. i can go back to my grade, at great-grandparents with pictures and with my great great great grandparents with the story of their lives in the united states. but that is extremely lucky. >> host: it in "the debt" what america owes to blacks you wrote what white society must be induced to do, own up to slavery and acknowledge its debt to slavery's contemporary victims. pay that debt and massive restitution's. rebuild the black esteem it destroyed by democratizing access to a trove of history's to which blacks contributed to prominently. when you talk about slavery's contemporary victims, what do you mean? >> guest: when segregation ended, there were those of us, and i was very fortunate to, a headstrong parents and an intact family. both of my parents had finished college. my father taught history in high school. my mother taught until she stopped to rear for children. and that meant everything to us. and so while we were damaged by segregation and we have a home. we had a family that was intact, that was sound and that was strong. 's so many people didn't have that, so they were exposed to the brute sharp edge of what was happening to them. and i think there were some of us who were in a position to move out once segregation ended. i was among that group. until that time, do we and those who were -- were stuck in the same boat. we were closed in to each other. some of us were able to go up and out. others of us could not. and so, we cleaved into two parts i think even then and i am not sure that those institutions that fought so hard at one time have fought the same tenacious battles for those who remain stuck today. so we have got the largest prison population in the world. over 2 million people, of the largest in the world-3/4 of those who face the death penalty are black and hispanic. half of the prison population is black. because of the way people's lives have been involved but also because of the unfairness in our criminal justice system. we see that for non-violent drug crimes. we constitute 14% of those who commit those crimes but roughly if i still have the figures right, if something like that a 6% of those prosecuted and close to 75% of those incarcerated. one sentence for a pound of cocaine and another sentence for crack-cocaine. the pound is essentially what white people used. the sentence is much lower than it is for crack-cocaine which is what black people have used. so the system is unfair. the history has been cruel and in many cases very little has changed for those people. >> host: in "quitting america" you write for all of my life, i have wished only to live in america that would but reciprocate my loyalty. at country that would absorb -- exhort from the several and diverse mounts of its decision-making authority and ideal of public candor and unconditional compassion in a country that would say without reserve to its disadvantage to its involuntary victims to native americans to african-african- americans to the wretchedly poor of all colors stripes tongues and religions that your country wronged you in separate and discrete ways, gronke with horrific and lingering consequences, wronged you in some cases from long ago and for a very long time, to a degree that would morally compel any civilized nation serious and sustained attention. >> guest: we don't want to talk about it. we still don't want to talk about it. we run from it. we now call it victimization, so it's not to be raised. it's a sad truth. >> host: why did you leave the country? >> guest: well i was as much going to a place as leaving a place. i have been going to st. kitts in the caribbean for 25 years, and it's a small island. it is made for someone like me who doesn't like big crowded places, big cities. it's an exquisitely beautiful place with mountains and clear blue water and a kind of smallness that allows the kind of intimacy you seldom go downtown and don't see someone that you know. but the biggest piece of it is that the woman i loved and married is from st. kitts, so we had decided many years ago that we were going to build a home their, which we did 11 years ago. so hazel and i have been there all that time and our daughter khalia went to high school there and finished high school and came back here to college and so that was one reason the. i was also wary -- weary, tired of the struggle that had depleted me. america had worn me out. simply because there are things that can't be talked about, has no tolerance for that kind of honesty and has no plans to make anything right. as if it says, and and i heard it say we have stopped the act of crime, and so if there is damage, then we are walking away from that. it's as if to say at the end of slavery, you could sort of like in this to two runners in the race. you take it done and shoot one runner in both legs and sounds the gun and you say now run. you can't catch up. there are people who had had everything taken from them. and the things that are not material are even more important. it's your software. it's your interior plumbing. it's what you have been caused to think of yourself, how you see yourself, the confidence or lack thereof in which you're trying to run any race. it was drained from many people over that love period and it's not like anything that has happened. we are talking about the longest running massive crime against humanity, the last 1000 years in the world. it's not like we bombed not the sake and hiroshima. and it is incinerated hundreds of thousands of people and in literally minutes because if the japanese who survived can remember their literature, can remember their culture and their traditions and put it all back up again, if the people who have lost it all, mothers, fathers, children, traditions, cultures, ways of living, then they don't know how to begin. i have jewish friends and hazel and i some years ago when we were in washington went to a bar mitzvah to see the launching of this adolescent son into adulthood. bland praise comes say all these wonderful things about a child. such a wonderful cultural traditional right of a ceremony to practice. there have been things like that still practiced in africa but the lost all of that. so your cause to reinvent culture almost every generation, that's a lot of damage. and it has to be acknowledged and it has to be reckoned with. >> host: randall robinson how much time do you spend in the states now? >> guest: i come up a few times. i was the dean of penn state law school that i have known for a couple of years, philip mcconaumcconau ghey called me and asked me if i would like to teach human rights courses and i spent all of my life in human rights and growing out of what i've been talking about. i said i would be happy to, so i teach a human rights course at penn state law school and i come up about three times a semester. arrested that we do via video so it works wonderfully. >> host: have you kept your u.s. citizenship? >> guest: oh yes. >> host: why? >> guest: my mother and father and my grandparents survived that for me. it is my duty. >> host: in "quitting america" the departure of a black man from his native land written in 2004 and by the way have you changed any of your views since the election of barack obama? >> guest: i remember my mother when he was nominated, hazel and khalia and i were in montrÉal. she called me at the hotel. she was i think 93 then. she said, and she was crying. [inaudible] i didn't need that telling. i always knew this. america is many places. it is a place that can be tolerant and accepting, a place where views can be moderated and differences can be reconciled. and i think a good deal of america supported vigorously the candidacy of a rock obama. and it's not only important to the black community. it's important to other americans as well. but he still faces a sort of vicious kind of ridicule from certain borders that are not unlike the america we saw when i was young in richmond, virginia. but, i think there are several americans -- i had grown tired of at least one of them. >> host: and "quitting america" you wrote america never helps anyone, even the starving and list its proposed to an american interest either strategic or economic and one cannot always distinguish one from the other. >> guest: well that's certainly largely true in foreign assistance. foreign assistance always has to be associated with a strategic purpose. when we look at what we did as a country to haiti, to thomas jefferson did everything he could to defeat the haitian revolution. the only successful slave revolt in the history of the hemisphere if these people turned back an army from spain, armies of 60,000 apiece from england and france twice and won their freedom, opened their doors to freeing slaves all over the world, gave them a weapon and muskets and soldiers to fight for freedom and black america in exchange for freeing slaves there, a promise he didn't keep but they did all of these things and america did everything they could to quash this haitian quest for freedom for people who had been enslaved. and when they won their revolution, they took with it two-thirds of france's foreign income because that was the most valuable colony in the world. now, that survives even until now. frederick douglass spoke at the ship cargo world's fair in 1893 and mystified about how hostile the united states has always been towards haiti, hostile towards them because they won their freedom. we did everything we could to overthrow the democratically-elected government of president aristide. george bush blocked loans from the interamerican development foundation of $146 million loans for education, water and things like that. the international republican institute arranged and organized the opposition to it and then we as a country trained rebel soldiers in the dominican republic, trained and armed them to come to haiti to overthrow the government and then the last analysis, those were a pulse didn't figure into it. bush carried out the coup himself on american soldiers who arrived at the home of the president and took him off at 3:00 in the morning to the central african republic. we have to had to go there. maxine waters, a jamaican parliamentarian and sharon webster and the president's lawyer flew off to rescue him to bring him back to jamaica and then condoleezza rice threatened to make the jamaican government -- threatened to make it very difficult for them if jamaica accepted aristide even for a matter of days before he went to south africa. all because he said the minimum income ought to be raced from 1 dollar a day to $2 a day. the sweatshops of essentially white in haiti combined with american authorities to get him thrown out of office. if you look at the history of america and what we do and why we do it to, it is not a pretty picture. >> host: in your most recent nonfiction book, "an unbroken agony" haiti, from revolution to the kidnapping of a president from 2007 you write in haiti's 200 year history of one is hard put to identify a single episode of organized human suffering in which the u.s. did not play a direct, collateral or instigator of role. >> guest: we didn't recognize haiti until after the emancipation and the united states. from 1804 until the end of the civil war, week combined with all of the western powers to smother haiti, to destroy haiti and then in 1825 friends imposed sanctions on haiti saying that they had to be paid $21 billion for having lost the right to use haitian slaves. so it's the first time in history ever that the winner of a warhead to pay reparations to the loser. and then after 1950, woodrow wilson invades haiti and stays for 19 years, kills thousands of people with american marines and takes the peasant leader of the revolt in haiti in response to this invasion and nails him up on a board for public display to demonstrate to people what the consequences could be when you fight back against america. and then, a chain of black presidents working at the direction of the united states duvalier's son kills 50,000 people and that was fine. aristide, the first democratically-elected resident said we are responsible for the coup that took him out of office. the bush administration did it directly. not covered in the american press. the american press said that he fled to south africa, when he was taken to the central republic. we had to go there to rescue him and jamaica braved the american storm to keep them there until he could go to south africa. we were responsible for that overthrow of the democratic government in haiti. and the haitians we owe so much, because the haitian revolution first of all made possible the louisiana purchase because napoleon was done with the empire as a result of that humiliating thing. secondly, after haiti, after that revolution the north atlantic slave trade was ended by britain and the united states at the last sort of breath of that was the end of the civil war. all of this was precipitated by the haitian revolution. people in the united states know nothing about the history, nothing about the story including african-americans. so we owe so much to those haitians, ex-slaves, who defeated for the four of the most powerful armies in europe in the 12 and a half year war for their freedom. what. what a great story of history. >> host: this month on booktv's "in depth" program author and activist randall robinson. he is the author of five nonfiction books. here they are beginning in 1998, mr. robinson wrote in 2000 "the debt" what america owes to blacks and "the reckoning" what blacks owe to each other came out in 2002 and "quitting america" the departure of a black man from his native land in 2004 and finally "an unbroken agony" haiti, from revolution to the kidnapping of a president. 202 is area code if you would like to dial in and participate in our conversation with randall robinson 585-3880 for those of you in eastern and central timezones and 585-3881 in the mountain and pacific timezones. you. you can also contact us via e-mail or go booktv at or social media. you can make a comment on our facebook page. or send us a tweet at booktv -- @booktv is our twitter handle. randall robinson what is transafrica? >> guest: transafrica is the organization that i began in 1976 to galvanize african-american opinion on foreign-policy issues, particularly issues that concern the black world, u.s. policy towards africa, the caribbean and latin america. so transafrica of course was the organization that used its incher mentalities to galvanize american opposition to apartheid and with the embassy arrests that we were able to organize the arrest of 5000 people and in the 1980s and 1984 and the next year, and with that working with members of congress. we won the support for the set of sanctions that president reagan vetoed and his veto was overridden by a republican-controlled senate excess of the work we did and the millions we organized to make a difference. that, coupled with the great work that was being done in south africa led to a new africa that we see today. but we have been doing that work over a period of time. i had been there 25 years when i stepped down. >> host: who are maxey and doris robinson? >> guest: maxie robinson was my father and doris robinson was my mother. and i have already introduced you to them. they had strong opinions and they were extraordinary parents and they were extremely principled people. i remember when my brother max was with abc news as the chicago anchor and he had gone to smith college to make a speech. he was critical of abc and i was so proud of him because in him i saw my father and the kinds of things that he has stood for when we were children. >> host: did that hurt max robinson's career? >> guest: oh, itch or did. there's no question. but i think he thought as much as he loved his work, he thought there were a few things more important. >> host: and "defending the spirit" a black life in america you write about -- when were you born? and what was your first 20 years like, your first 18 years like? >> guest: two realities. i was happy in our home and family. epic family. i had brothers and sisters and everybody was nearby. we saw everybody and a lot of family all the time. and so all of that was wonderful and joyous but the conditions under which we were living were horrid. although i could go for works with -- weeks without seeing a white person the experience when you have them were -- every lesson that was taught was designed to teach you that you are inferior. and i remember caddying on a golf course and my father had encouraged me not to do it. >> host: and encouraged you not to do it? >> guest: no, carrying bags for people and i did it and i remember rattling the clubs in the bag on the green and this was a country club in virginia. the golfer turned to me and said if you rattle those clubs again i will rattle you. i dropped the bag and walked off and went home. it was sort of like that and some of them had us witnessing our parents having to accept what was going on. mother would have to put a cap on her head before she could try on a hat in the stores in the downtown richmond. one store, could tell those on gray street, you would just go in and stand and no one would wait on you. as if you were not there. and when we would even go to chinese restaurants to give food , the chinese had to live by these rules so we would have to go up some stairs to the kitchen and get the food to carry out. when it was empty except for us we would still have to sit in the back and behind the line. these things register on your psyche and they think they stay there for a lifetime. >> host: from "defending the spirit" winter 1967 cambridge massachusetts. you write, i have a ride from segregation is segregationists virginia to attend harvard law school. my first year of class of more than 500 students is divided into four sections. my section is sitting through a tort lecture given by a young professor charles free. professor freed was born in prague czechoslovakia in 1935 and was educated at princeton and oxford and columbia and will become solicitor general of the end ask -- u.s. under president ronald reagan. you talk about some of her classmates and one of them is mark joseph green, liberal democrat of cornell university in great neck new york. repressor freed asks, can anyone think of an actionable nuisance we haven't touched on today? mark joseph green says, what about black people moving into a neighborhood? a thoughtful discussion ensued and sanders looks at me. we all look at each other in our faces portrayed little. in any case the privileged young white scholars are oblivious. their legal arguments to be mustard pro and con. the discussion of whether not the mere presence of blacks constitutes an inherent nuisance swirls around the five bucks. we say nothing. we cannot dignify insults with reason for a bottle in the choices between ventilated rage and silence reaches silence. >> guest: mark was running for office in new york recently and i haven't seen them since that experience but when he was running for office someone had read that in the book and a journalist and asked me of course about it. i told him and something about that was published. mark did not deny it but he said he couldn't remember and i thought about the african proverb. they ask for gifts but the tree remembers. >> host: when you hear the term bill clinton is the first -- black president of the united states what are your thoughts? >> guest: oh my. i think it's absurd personally. i think sometimes we have been denied the highest attention for so long that when people attend our church and they know the hymns or they play the saxophone reasonably well, we accord them credit that is largely undeserved. bill clinton was returning that fleeing haitian refugees who had been fleeing the military dictatorship that we armed and supported in haiti, and he cordoned the place with ships and copies people and turned them over to their killers. in rwanda, in the u.n. it was ambassador madeleine albright who has to take some responsibility for it but deaths of 500,000 tutsis in rwanda because she single-handedly obstructed do you win intervention with the support of bill clinton. when a handful of nations and the caribbean, st. lucia, dominica and a few others, banana producing nation's, had a small slice of the european market to export their finance, though clinton fought and threatened with 100 or send those european countries that were given that market opportunity to the east caribbean banana producers who only produced bananas. that was what they're a common these were based on. but he wanted that tiny bit, that slice of market opportunity to go to chiquita bananas whose ceo was a big supporter of his. but he couldn't have been a big a supporter as the black community had to him and so that was taken away from those producers and caribbean economies were significantly damaged. when he was asked to reconcile the differences between the sentence for the use and sale of crack-cocaine and powder cocaine, he talked about it but never did anything. on human rights, he never ratified -- he weakened the treaty before the international criminal court, but he never ratified. i really don't understand when you look at his record, outside of naming blacks to positions, i don't see some of the not so well-known things of course would reveal that he did some rather unsavory things to the black community nationally. i don't understand much of what he did as the basis for black support. >> host:>> host: randall robinsn writes about former president clinton, the dead -- "the debt" sipri. mr. robinson was the last time you talked to the president? >> guest: to president clinton? i have never talked to him. when i was on a 28 day hunger strike, trying to get him to stop rounding up people and sending those people to their deaths in haiti, on the 28th day i was hospitalized, the 26th day, dehydrated and hospitalized and they thought i was going to die. he send sandy bergman who was my law school classmates to talk to me to see whether i was really dying and sandy came with an offer that if i would agree to end the hunger strike he would agree to screen haitian refugees. it was all i was asking for. when you are fleeing with it will founded fear of persecution under international human rights law, than all the member nations of the united nations have an obligation to provide refuge to you. that. that is all i was asking for. he knew these people were fleeing with a well-founded fear of ursa keeshan. we were supplying the weapons for these folks. but he kept doing it. but when the hunger strike publicized all of that and he thought i might die, he send sandy to make an offer. but i never once spoke to him. he's simply said to the press that he was glad that i was out there. i want to stay out there doing this and they never knew what he meant by that. i have never talked to him at all. >> host: what did you say to sandy? >> guest: it wasn't a long discussion. i was in bed and hazel was with me and i largely listened and he told me what the offer was and i told him that i would accept that offer. he asked if i would appear with him on "meet the press" i think sunday, which was the next day. i told him that i would. >> host: randall robinson is. >> host: randall robinson's or guess it now it's your turn. a call from bruce in marianna georgia. hi bruce. >> caller: thanks for having me on. i am black and i was born on the south side of chicago and i have two questions. the first question is, really, what has the black political class really done for us in terms of great victories in the last 40 years? this may be 1972, part from the illustrious careers. your career and barack's career. what have they done for us really since then a number two is susan rice nomination, when susan rice was nominated for secretary of state for whole black political class closed ranks around her as if she was some kind of martyr or as susan rice the undersecretary of african affairs in the clinton administration. she was a lobbyist for ethiopians and rwandans and our policy has been to give military aid to every country in africa. we have completely militarized our africa policy. we give military aid to every country on the continent except -- in libya and it's the only place where our foreign policy is totally integrated with our diplomacy. that is what africom is and all the wars there in the congo, six or 7 million people have died since the mid-90s and susan rice had been -- in blood. >> host: all right bruce, lot on the table there. randall robinson. >> guest: let me be brief about susan rice. i have been troubled by those associations that you have described. i don't know the extent of which the black political class has closed ranks or did close ranks around her. i have been out of the country a large part of the time although i do try to keep a, but i am not privy to that. i will say in defense of elected officials, i don't know that we could have won sanctions against south africa without the vigorous support of the congressional black caucus. every member of the congressional black
FOX Business
Feb 8, 2013 10:00pm EST
>> all of the hoopla with gun laws as a result of the second amendment written how long ago? were there semite automatic guns back then did anybody think founding fathers may have written it differently for these weapons back then? >> i havnot heard changing day right to bear arms but just the kind. >> perhaps gun control advocates can explain how chicago with the stringent laws on the planet had more than 500 homicides 2012. gerri: mayor bloomberg strikes again and you began to take effect, a first the soda on what kind of cups you can use, announcing backing a styrofoam base and and says it will get in your closer to his goal of recycling one-third of the trash. restaurant owners up in arms feeling attacked. you are our mayor not r daddy. you have got to stop. that is my $0.2. have a great weekend. >> good evening, we are now looking at pictures of a live shot of boston expected to be the epicenter of the blizzard hitting this our most bracing for the effect of the potentially deadly blizzard some areas expecting 3 feet of snow we will have full coverage. among the stories vice president by then declares the government has the power to decide what kind of guns citizens may own. we will examine the historic role in the obamacare obtain and chicago police show a worsening wave of crime and now the murder capital of america, police asking for the 12 percent raise. but we will begin with a massive snowstorm affecting 50 million people blizzard warnings are in effect means through new york city in some locations are expecting between two and 3 feet and not expected to dissipate until sunday. officials asking everyone but the essential public workers to remain at home and governors of new york york, massachusetts and connecticut and rhode island already declared states of emergency, widespread power failures are expected including flooding in the high tide, airlines have canceled 4,000 flights through sunday and amtrak has suspended all train service until further notice any urologists are comparing this to the 130 years ago, 1978 -- 30 years ago ago, 27 inches in providence and the aftermath was devastating. that killed 99 people and more than 4500 were injured. the impact was so widespread that president carter declared federal disaster areas sending in the national guard was cleanup it caused half a billion dollars in damages. we have a team coverage tonight, the brady -- braving though whether. starting in the york city. >> y asked me earlier if i was ready, fortunately i am but the warnings came out two days ago. if you don't have it by now now, it's too late. no better picture than this literally covering the entire northeast corridor. although many people got what they needed groceries, prescriptions, gu est in their car, it will be treacherous, and the airlines are not traveling anywhere, 5,000 flights canceled and the impact will be felt for days to come. amtrak shuts down early this afternoon leaving travelers stranded and advising people tuesday point*. there is concern they get it right, governor cuomo had this to say. >> the new york power authority has extra personnel on duty to help with power outages. this is a serious, severe winter storm, we just went through a terrible storms with hurricane sandy, not anticipating anything like that, that is the good news. >> the national guard is out. people should check the elderly to make sure people are okay. charge your cellphone now and take it seriously, possibly for the record books. lou: reporting from midtown manhattan, now let's go to boston, mali, there is the travel ban? >> there is quite a few cars it has gotten so much rse the wind has picked up in and this note if people did not know about the ban by thistime people are really staying off the road i in place for non-essential, not even become a firefighter firefighter, the medical field, a plow driver than the governor asks to stay home and don't contribute to any problems leading to first responders having to work. you could face or jail time. this is a historic storm come up to 3 feet of snow, high wind, power outages, low visibility. also high tide expected 10:00 p.m. tonight especially those in end low-lying areas. >> listen to directions from public officials if you are in a coastal area if you were advised to evacuate, do so quickly because water can rise quickly. >> also getting reports around the region expected to get worse overnight to and most people will be hunkered down, tomorrow the governor and other employees could assess the damage to get the power lines back up and running. to checkout neighborhoods and be careful they don't know what is under the snow and the possibility wires could be covered. lou: the wind is starting to pick up. what is the governor's plan when the storm comes to my clothes? >> assess damage. right now six or 7 inches they could easily have another foot or 16 inches to figure where to put the snow. these numbers have not been seen for decades. if people do stay off the roads, the plows, utility workers can get to where they need to be, hopefully getting lights and heat turned back on as quickly as possible. lou: molly at the epicenter in boston. the storm is strengthening, let's go to our weather center with fox news meteorologist coming he is not ready but we will go back in just a moment. and the comparison to this superstorm of 1978 is based on the geographical area, i do stand now rick is ready. >> the main event is about ready to get going. the big coastal storm that is strengthening, it it will pull in the energy of the other system they will get together to see a rapid strengthening to see the snowfall rates really increase. yellow and red is heavy rainfall -- rainfall but then will be a snowfall with the band that will be the heaviest, notice this break with new jersey and new york there is heavy snow to come back and within the next hour we will fill this id and will become also no. very cold into tomorrow and that slush on the ground is freezing with snow on top of it. by tomorrow afternoon everybody here cold temperatures, of windy and cold night tomorrow with a long stretch to see bad travel conditions, a sunday is a better -- better day and monday will help a little bit with 40 degrees. lou: and already looks better behind you. any adjustments of snowfall? >> all along the on the big question is toward the york city some 30 inches we are right on that line so york will get another seven or 8 inches but we will see those individual areas with e b3 feet totals. lou: that is a lot of snow we will keep updated on the wicked whether. president did farewell to leon panetta one day after he testified to congress the president was a wall the ♪ making the big romantic gesture. that's powerful. verizon. get a nokia lumia 822 in red for free. i ed you. i feel so alone. but you're not alone. i knew you'd come. like i could stay away. you know i can't do this without you. you'll never have to. you're always there for me. shh! i'll get you a rental car. i could also use an umbrella. fall in love with progressive's claims service. >> the nasdaq at the highest close since november of 2,000, and volume down to 2.9 billion shares. the dow jones industrials breaking the five week win streak, and s&p and nasdaq, however, squeed out gaining exteemedding the winning streak to six weeks. this is the first six week winning streak for the s&p since 1971. linkedin with an all-time high, up 21%. aol up 7.5%, apple up 1.5%, and crude and oil closer lower, oil, the worst weakly performance since the end of november. ten-year treasury unchanged, a yield of 1 #.95%. well, here on fox business, we've been focusing on the real estate story throughout the day as the housing market recovers. we've been spotlighting homes for sale across the country to give you an idea of what's happening in various parts of the country including some very high end homes. looking at a 2.4 billion property getting you a 1900 square foot apartment, 20% down, and the monthly mortgage payment is $7,000 plus $1500 in monthly property taxes, properties of all prices and places fascinate the next guest who expects the market to make a strong contribution to economic growth this year. joining us is dr. lawrence, senior vice president of research for the national association of realtors. good to have you with us. >> good evening. lou: this market looks like it's really recovering. give us a sense, as best you n, how strong it is nationwide. >> well, the strength of the recovery is much stronger than many people anticipated, and we are asically seeing the housing start up roughly 25% from one year before, and i think that for 2013, it could be a bigger increase because we are encountering some housing shortage. home sales running roughly 10% higher from one year before, and the inventory level came down to a 13-year low level, and because of the low draw down in inventory, one is seeing a consistent price increases, and these price increases have added $1 trillion to household wealth who are homeowners. lou: well, adding a trillion dollars, we still got a ways to go in this market to g us back to, well, pre-2008 levels. the idea that this -- that we're seeing this resurgence though, is it -- you talk about low inventory. do we have low inventory across all price ranges, or is it isolated? >> it is predominantly in the lower price range because what has happenedded is that given the very low yield on cash return, money sitting at the bank or people buying bonds, many of the investors have turned towards rental income, and for rental income, they are looking for the signaler sized home, more of a bargain price. it is more of an acute shortage of inventory on the lowwr price ends. on the upper end, the market was a buyer's market one year ago, but now roughly in balance, but primarily on the lower price end where investors came in, all cash, not doing the mortgage, all cash, coming in, scooping up the properties. lou: now all cash works better, if you will, at the top end of the market where one expects that kind of money, but for those who are looking for homes at the lower end of the market, they need credit, and that credit we keep hearing stories of how constricted, still, credit is for those who need it to buy a home. >> you are absolutely right. the credit condition is still overly stringent. if you look at the credit scores of those approved on a loan, it is much higher than even under normal years. less discount in the bubble years, lax underwriting or undocumented loans. compared to ten years ago, normal underwriting standards, today, the credit score requirement is tighter and somewhat puzzling giving the huge cash reserve that the banking industry is holding on to. now, they are saying there's too much lawsuit, regulatory uncertainty holding back some of the lending potential, but you had many potentially good renters, financially qualified renters who could become homeowners and participate in the house wealth buildup, yet, they are denied a mortgage and, rather, you have investors who already own a home scooping up those bargain properties. lou: lawrence, thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. >> thank you. lou: up next, the president's choice to run the cia defending the obama administration's drones and targeted killings. leading attorneys join us to tell us where is the constitution in all of this? yemen accuses iran of arming insurgents after weapons are seized and explosives. fox news terrorism analyst joins me next. ♪ how do traders using technical analysis streamline their process? at fidelity, we do it by merging two tools into one. combining your customized charts with leading-edge analysis tools from recognia so you can quickly spot key trends and possible entry and exit pois. we like this idea so much that we've applied for a patent. i'm colin beck of fidelity investments. our integrated technical analysis is one more innovative reason serious investors are choosing fidelity. now get 200 free trades when you open an account. so we created the extraordinarily comfortable sleep number experience. a collection of innovations designed around a bed with dualair technology that allows you to adjust to the support your body needs - each of your bodies. our sleep professionals will help you find your sleep number setting. exclusively at a sleep number store. sleep number. comfort ... individualized. at the ultimate sleep number event, queen mattresses start at just $599 . and save 50% on our innovative limited edition bed. lou: russian design sam two and sam three antiaircraft missiles c4 high explosives material found off a ship off the northern yemen coast. that shipment originated in iran. coordinated with the navy, and mike rogers tells fox it's part of a broader pattern to destabilize the region. joining us, middle east and terrorism analysts dr. ferris. they are caught red-handed here while they -- why is the united states not respondng and responding strongly? >> well, first of all, this is not really the first time the iranian regime sent shipments of weapons as far as yemen, northern yemen. they went, imagine all i way through iran to the arabian peninsula, the international waters to get ton an enclave in northern yemen, far from the gulf where we are upposed to be containing them, and that is telling about what iran is doing. that is telling us that or containment policy, the sanctions that we have right now are not really detouring the iranians. it's in bahrain, uae, iraq, and even in other countries in the red sea area. lou: and, of course, it is nothing new, as you say irrespective of the distance traveled issue and it was a short distance from teheran to baghdad, but in that span, we know iranians were killing american troops and did so throughout the war. there was no response. how can it be that a super power, this country, would allow such travesty without response? whether it's the bush administration or the obama administration. >> the problem, lou, is that under the bush administration, it was basically putting pressure on the iranians. we were present in iraq. we tried to contain hezbollah. we had u.n. resolutions against hezbollah and lebanon. it was not efficient. in the obama administration, there's disengagement, connect the dots, sending away from the gulf half of the task force, sending messages to the leadership of the iranians not to reform, but to engage with us. we are not helping the iraqis who are rising against iranian influence. iran is sending weapons and also its own guarded in syria to help crush its own opposition. while we are claiming our sanctions are working, iran is all over the map, and more recently, lou, two things. iranian navy has facilities on the coast in the ports on the red sea, and port sudan. their navy crushed the suez canal wh the help of the muslim brotherhood in egypt. it's problematic now. >> whatyou are saying is that the united statesnational security architecture is incapable of formulating a response to the adventurism, if you will, of iran and the extent of itself interest in the region. if that's the case, it's beyond the political dgments made by this president. it goes much deeper, much broader than that the way i hear you describing it. >> oh, absolutely, lou. look, the decision already made in the past four years to engage the iranian leadership, and that decision has a price. they think that if you want to engage them, you will not confront them anymore. you will not confront them in syria, iraq, bahrain, and yes , ma'am, -- yemen, and elsewhere. there's a direct threat in venezuela, mexico, and elsewhere so the result of the policy with regard to iran allows the iranian regime to be a bigger problem that we cannot solve within this point in time. lou: within that context, john brennan to be the head of the cia. we listened to the outgoing defense secretary, panetta, say that the president of the united states and the secretary of state were not involved in the entire period in washington, d.c. in the -- in the benghazi attack, acknowledging for the first time. we have some -- first, your reaction to that revelation by secretary panetta. >> well, first of all, what seems to be the problem is the decision by the administration not to identify the threat before they strike. that's hu. meaning in libya, according to the cables we read, we did not see that this is a threat, and if we don't see that this is a threat, we don't actually -- we arnot prepared. lou: i have to say that we don't see that as a threat when we watched the british embassy be bombed, the british ambassador attacked, watched the international red cross withdrawal from benghazi, what -- how large a tyke would be writ in order for us to get the message? this is 5 -- a frightening, frightening episode. >> we're not looking at the ideology of the guys. they are the basic attitude that we consider them as hostiles, and be aware that they may attack us. now, once they attacked us, that's why they were looking at all other -- lou: i'm out of time, but what's your reaction to the revelations about the secretary of state and the president of the united states? >> i think, look, my summarized position is that they are two policies now. they were two managements of foreign policy. one low level, and a different one strategic going out of the white house, and many thinks the white house had at the time objectives not really informed at the security council on the one hand or the state department. lou: let me ask you just straight up, yes or no. were you disappointed or disgusted at the conduct of the president of the united states and the secretary of state? >> i think that by rying to put this on the video, this was a diversion from what was happening on the ground, and they tried not to inform the american public before the elections. i think that's the con consensuf most of us, those of us who know what the jihadists were trying to do. lou: thank you for being with us. more on the rising tensionings in -- tensions in the middle east and president obama's response with the a-team next. the northeast hit by another big storm. in fact, a record storm. the blizzard update is next. bush whacked or hacked, however you want to say it, the bush family photos and secret e-mails of the former first family released on the internet. the secret service says it's on it. joe biden's at it again. here we go. the vice president on the second amendment. he so far gone this time, we brought in two attorneys, author and jenkins give us perspective on the vice president. the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash back on all purchases, plus a 50% annual bonus. and everyone but her likes 50% more cash, but i have an idea. do you want a princess dress? yes. cupcakes? yes. do you want an etch-a-sketch? yes! do you want 50% more cash? no. you got talent. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash back on every purchase plus a 50% annual bonus on the cash you earn. it's the card for people who like more cash. what's in your wallet? i usually say that. officewith an online package new colincluding: domain name,y! website builder with five pages and basic email just $49.99! that's up to 76 percent below online providers and only at officemax stores! it's delicious. so now we've turned her toffee into a business. my goal was to take an idea and make ihaen. i'm janet long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. never really thought i would make money doing what i love. [ robert ] we created legalzoom to help people start their business and launch their dreams. go to today and make your business dream a reality. at we put the law on your side. i work for 47 different companies. well, technically i work for one. that company, the united states postal service®, works for thousands of home businesses. because at®, you can pay, print and have your packages picked up for free. i can even drop off free boxes. i wear a lot of hats. well, technically i wear one. the u.s. postal service®, no business too small. we don't let frequent heartburn come between us and what we love. so if you're one of them people who gets heartburn and then treats day afr day... block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] e pill eachmorning. 24 hours. zero heartbur lou:nother look at the radar on the winter storm hitting the northeastern part of the country, that is expected to dump 3 feet of snow the governors of new york, connecticut, massachus etts, rhode island have ordered a state of emergency was blizzard warnings went at 70 miles per hour also wipe out conditions are expected and major snowdrifts it will be quite a night or this storm is unleashing its powers. chicago police officers demanding pay, the policemen's union in addition to seeking 12 percent pay hike wants to be paid extra money because they are required to live in the city suggesting a $3,000 stipend mayor ron emmanuel said they will all represent the taxpayers and what they can afford. lou: they have 27 million of unfunded pension liabilities and budget problems to go along with the political problems. vice president by been pushed democrats hard on gun-control telling the democratic party retreat he is steadfast the government can declare your guns illegal. >> it is recognized without a doubt, a clearly within the power of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public. lou: not the citizens that it prohibits a and limits the government and is intent on infringing our rights to bear arms joining us now is arthur, attorney and criminal prosecutor, can you believe the vice president relegated us the members of the public? >> i took it to be american citizens, i did not make that distinction, i think it is a matter of speech. lou: so it seems that you might agree? >> he is right to a certain extent look at what the supreme court said justice scalia said it does not mean you have the right to bear any type of weapon at any given time, there are limits >> fifth vice president by dint maybe his oratory skills are not at the top it did not make any sense so be that as it may, here is the case law, justice scalia and bided are probably not on the same page too often, they say it is the lot of silly and. justice leo said under due process is every state but the state can regulate you cannot have the f-15 fighter plane you cannot have a bazooka or hand grenade. >> but it was about handguns >> the president and dianne feinstein talk about handguns and is ruled in chicago the toughest surviving handgun law, enough already. they will not te the american people what to do as long as we are possessed of the second amendment. of the government can encroach the second, fourth, 14th second, fourth, 14th, firs t, where does a and? >> the next conversation is the drones. lou: this same administration sending drones nobody hates the radical islamic terrorist more tn i do or to kill them if they are an american citizen i do not want rights suspended but a judicial proceeding and a finding to kill that person. >> bandstand. the argument is that slows down the process we heard a couple of factors tt has to be of imminent threat. lou: against the interest of united states, a very simple but we talk about those instances there is that a judicial proceeding we talk about those that are not imminent. for those who have a knee-jerk reaction, janet hippolyta on know, 011 had a potential threat of terrorism, right wean extremism, and veterans, a pro-life, states' rights as a potential terrorist would be in the same process as they would act against the inference of the united states. are you kidding me? we give them that power? >> when you talk about people on the mainland and you go after them without due process but whoever is in charge, do we .25 young men, americans, to capture this american? lou: i am not suggesting that, i suggest there is a judicial proceeding. >> you are right, you just watched a hearing washington d.c., the former secretary of defense, chairman of joint chiefs abetted the secretary of state was not even engaged in benghazi we did not respond and lindsay gramm brought out extraordinary testimony not knowing how long it would take did not respond and you would give the same people the por without a process? >> it should never be done. >> this is absolutely incompetent leadership. >> just like trade on margin. i s justified to kill this person but the difference is the government proves but now it doesn't. >> nobody wants to deal with this, we want the cia to handle this we don't want, let me rephrase those who are better occupied intriguing but what the president involved because we have a different world now with political offices and the white house and you cannot tell what is preeminent republican or democrat. >> the concern is the timing for those who have determined to be those who propose the imminent threat. lou: every citizen in this country should be comfortable the drones are flying over? >>. >>. >> this is the ramifications >> as an american citizen you are entitled. >> they blew the guy away without due procs. lou: which by? >> the drones the american citizen and that was killed. lou: i want attorneys representing members of the public who prefer to be called citizens representing or rights insisting on law and order this is not lawful we're becoming something other than americans and they're really think it is time for both parties to understand to c-net thinking and conduct our government. [applause] [laughter] former prosecutor who convicted the blind shake, k.t. mcfarland with a brand-new radio show will be with us. get the links of the base the page lou the president tells fellow democrats hejaz support on spending and taxes and gun control. control. the "a team" [ rosa ] i'm rosa and i quit smoking with chantix. when the doctor told me that i could smoke for the first week... i'm like...yeah, ok... little did i know that one week later i wasn't smoking. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serus allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, tell your doctor if you have new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleepin and unusual dreams. it helps to have people around you... they s, you're much bigger than this. and you are. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you. lou: former special assistant market stayed and jetted diana and john fund, thank you for being here. continue the conversation of the drums. want to redo with american citizens? >> due process. to make the eighth distinction between american citizen in those or not you're doing something wrong absolutely. barack obama better be held accountable. you could bet it is the maininstream headline with every ouet. lou: the president you work for the media is going nuts over enhanced interrogation techniques, water boarding and this president kills american citizens and everybody says okay, next. >> barack obama has gone further than president george w. bush ever did this killing people with the drones but killing american citizens without due process as a lawyer i think those who have no respect, shame on you. >> george orwell wrote animal farm the famous phrase some page are more equal than others may be some citizens are more equal than others. lou: joe biden referring to the public's right purses a citizen's right to, this is nasty. >> a collectivist mindset they don't see us as individuals as a collectivist society redistribution of wealth let me take your money and give it to someone else. >> socialism? collectivism. >> may be a community organizer. [laughter] spirit the constitution gave power to the people and the people gave the power to the government but this administration thinks they are the government and have ♪ making the big romantic gesture. that's powerful. verizon. get a droid razr m by motorola in pink for $49.99. i don't have to leave my desk anget up and go to the post office anymore. [ male announcer ] with you can buy and print real u.s. postage for all your letters and packages. it's like somebody dropped a post office on my desk. it's faster, and cheaper, and make us more productive. makes it easy. easy, easy, easy. all you need is a computer and a inter. [ male announcer ] now you can avoid trips to the post office. go to and get a 4 week, no risk trial. i have exactly the amount of postage i need, the instant i need it. it saves me a good 4 or 5 hours a week. it saves us so much time and money. postage meters are a lot more expensive. can you print only stamps? no... first class. priority mail. certified. international. and the mail man picks it up. i don't leave the shop anymore. now it's all under my control, and i like that. [ male announcer ] learn more at and get a 4 week trial plus $100 in extras including a scale and free postage to use during your trial. go to and never go to the post office again. or a charity case. a trouble maker. worthless. just a stupid mistake. i don't think i'm a lost cause. i'm just a kid. youth villages believes that no child is a lost cause. not a single one. because a stable loving family can help any child succeed. and we have an 80% success rate that proves it. if you agree, find out how you can help. at youth lou: back with a few comments from the a-team, jedediah your thoughts. >> i'm not so sure a free society survives when obamacare passed i started to worry, you can mandate someone has to have health chunks, -- insurance, i saw slippery slope i'm worried. >> i agree. vice president of u.s. said that president should have power to mandate which weapons and guns that citizens can own, when it is going to end. >> remember what churchill said we'll do the right thing, but first we must exhaust all possibilities, we're getting close, there may be a awakening it will start with recession come box in the summer. lou: i worry that church hill, who anticipated so much did not anticipate in exhausting all possibilities w could exhaust our wealth, legacy and perhaps destiny. thank you, all i appreciate it. >> thank you for being with us, we hope have you a safe, and good weekend, see you monday. good weekend, see you monday. good night from new all stations come over to mission a for a final go. this is for real this time. step seven point two one two. rify and lock. command is locked. five seconds. three, two, one. stanng by for capture. the most innovative software on the planet... dragon is captured. is connecting today's leading companies to places beyond it. siemens. answers. could lose tens of thousands of dollars on their 401(k) to hidden fees. thankfully e-trade has low cost investments and no hidden fees. but, you know, if you're still bent on blowing this fat stack of cash, there's a couple of ways you could do it. ♪ ♪ or just go to e-trade and save it. boom. ♪
Feb 9, 2013 3:00pm EST
pulitzer prize. i believe you said before that this was very important to you in development of mental health as your primary issue as first lady and even now and so i think that connects important couple of dogs between the career of jack nelson and with the carter center today pants today stands for. .. pulitzer prize winner. i shared that day with her. we'll be reading rosemary mcgee. we'll be reading about jack's former colleague and we have on display example of the nelson paper. and i just want to thank all of you and especially our panelists so much. it was a great event. thank you so much. [applause] thank you. [inaudible conversations] [applause] is there a non-fiction author or book you would like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv at or tweet us at on c-span2, we bring you booktv. 48 hours of non-fiction authors and books. here are programs to look out for this weekend. at 5:00 p.m. eastern. ben argues that liberals bully their competition discouraging political debate. then at 2:00 a.m. michelle alexander crime policy from the '70s were enacted to push back gangs made during the civil rights movement. on sunday with recent policy debates on congress in immigration rebring you stories from immigrants who share their experiences on booktv. that's at 4:00 p.m. eastern. at 11:00 p.m. on sunday. melvin argues that the government is spending excessively on defense. making us less secure. watch these programs and more all weekend long on booktv. for a complete schedule, visit next on booktv, petered bergen and a panel of contributors discuss the book "talibanistan: negotiating the borders between terror, politics and religion" which expores the threat posed by extremist who operate in the border area between afghanistan and pakistan. this is about an hour and a half. ♪ good morning. good afternoon, everybody. welcome. i'm steve cool i'm the president of new america foundation. it's my pleasure to welcome do you to the event briefly and introduce our subject, which from our perspective involves the launch of the book that somebody will hold up for the audience. since i don't have a copy. "talibanistan." i just wanted to say a few words about where this book came from and why the subject matter. you'll hear discussed today struck us as worthy of what became really a couple of years of endeavor at new america lead by peter bergen who will be the host and moderator through most of the program today. peter and katherine who is not here with us today. coed ditted this book from the oxford university press. it's a collection of scholarly and journalistic articles about the taliban and the environment in southern afghanistan and western pakistan. , and it born as an attempt at new america by a diverse group of researchers to get at some of the diversity of the taliban itself at the time when the united states was puzzling over the rejury gent as a movement and a political force in afghanistan. as a military challenge, and really a challenge that had been neglected in the years after the 2001 defeat of the islamic member of the afghanistan. and which revived and presented itself as a grave d.a. lem that toment obama administration as it arrived in 2009. our effort to cowhat think tanks do. provide ground for it an complexity and granularity about this phenomena. recognizing that the sort of clicheed image of one eyed -- and his band of the devoted and attractable fan net tack was inadequate and falsifying of the problem. so the purpose was not prosecute a particular view of the taliban but just to start to document some sections of the diversity. and some aspect of the characteristic that were otherwise not part of american debate and discourse. i'm really proud of this book. and of peter particularly whose leadership of the national security studies program at new america will be the last five years he's been one of my joys in my office to support him to watch and katherine as well. who worked very, very hard. the last thing i want to say that the book and the ideas and the research in it is part of a much broader body of work of south asia we have been engaged here in the last five years. the channel i hope you are sub describers and carried out in collaboration with foreign policy and lot of other conferences and public cay i guesses around south ashane affairs. so anyway, we are pleased to have out indication to bring us together and the purpose to have a serious discussion about the idea and subjects that are in the book than are obviously still alive. as d.a. lem ma for american foreign policy. let me introduce peter and welcome him to the podium. thank you. [applause] thank you steven. thank you for all of you coming today and for c-span for covering this. steve was instrumental in making this project happen. i'm grateful to him. thank you to oxford university press which published the book and did a fine job in terms of presenting the material. thank you also to my coed or it katherine and thanks to people here at the foundation brian fishman, patrick doughty, jennifer i believe you were involved in making the book possible. steve indicated the reason we thought the project was necessary a series of papers not as the command stormed on the stage out of the woods of cambodia in the 1970s had a movement become so important yet at the same time less well understood than any other insurgent movement in the modern era. and, you know, obviously we have the great book on taliban. it seemed that was much the pre-9/11 taliban and we wanted focus on how did the taliban develop after 9/11? and we have some doesn't chapters in the book six people here on the stage contributed to the book. and a nongroup who is fellow here at the new america foundation i writing a book on afghanistan has the first chapter in the book. and the chapter he'll explain in more detail asked the question in the sense the taliban insurgency inevitable as it relates to the kandahar taliban immediately after 9/11. were there efforts by the movement to essentially negotiate with the afghan government, which unfortunately were not followed up on. we're also have on the stage a professor at national defense university and former professor of colombia and high ranking pakistan police official exams what is now the political scene the frontier proves -- in a sense the political echo system in which the pakistan taliban is able to swim. while group like the mma went off the taliban they are sufficiently aligned with the taliban to allow it to political space that it enjoyed in the 2008, 2009 time period when it was a lot of denial about the pakistan taliban and the threat it pose to the the pakistan state. the next one is bryan fishman. a fellow here at new america foundation. "issue" a company with which many are familiar. bryan worked twon chapters. one with him. one looking at the networking in some detail aman is probably the on person in the room watching who is actually met the factor of the leader of the networking. bryan worked with him on that chapter and also did a interesting chapter where he stepped back and looked at in a sense the different taliban group u groups and asked the different groups. do they attack the state or not. do they take direction or not? and very interesting capturing sort of tippology in the different groups. to bryan's right is ken who is one of the leading pollster in the muslim world. he helped us with the first poll that looked a the the political sensitive political questions in the triable region. obviously a polling is pretty tricky for the reasons. we had a good partner on the ground called camp. he helped us think about how to make it purely scientific poll. he'll explain the findings on the poll and written a book "terrorist in love" which is an account of jihady and why they join certain groups and talk about what he learned about moammar in the process of writing the book. to the right of him is tom lirnlg who served on admiral mullen's staff and is now a national defense university. he has written i think ab absolutely fascinating chapter on the defeat of al qaeda what it means and the united states should do going forward in afghanistan. it's not necessary lay popular view among certain circles in washington, d.c. for instance we want to say they attack in benghazi is proof of al qaeda insurgence. he'll deal with that question. and sameer a fellow here the ph.d. candidate m.i.t. he has an interesting chapter about pakistan counter insurgety operations which has been effective. we had our own problem with counter insurgety in information -- insurgency in afghanistan the pakistan military did better than -- with that. i'll turn it over. we'll go down the row this way. thank you very much. first and foremost, [inaudible] on the book and the great work done by the foundation on militants in south asia. it's a great contribution and a great source of research for students everywhere not only the u.s. but also in south asia. and i just actually returned from pakistan for 48 hours ago. i was just joking with a friend that my three days in pakistan ab about two and a half days was spent on discussing the new phenomena a religious -- [inaudible] it's become recent and new follow that that. many political leaders holding big rallies with hundreds of thousands of people coming up with the coming up with new slogans and now with the elections coming in three months or so. there's a lot of political activity. i'm focusing about seven minutes i'm given on not the -- [inaudible] and i want to add to my position in the government opposition that seeing today in my views of my perm views and not representative of dod. the landscape in what was called the -- [inaudible] that's what i focused on. this is the [inaudible] we often focus on the unsettled area which is federally. we often look at adjoining which the british had framed like this. which is about 25 million people perhaps but more than all of them together in afghanistan. so this is very critical. it's the connection between them. if i may call it that. what happened there in the last ten years or so had a huge impact on how taliban, the pakistan taliban came to be. how there was a genesis. how they established their roots. how in a step by step fashion they expanded their space. that's why the area i'll now call kbb that's why it is important. and i read about three or four points to focus on here. one is that one of the -- [inaudible] why the genesis of all congratulation -- [inaudible] became a reality they were discovered off of all major religious and political parties. in 2008 or stwefn. it is a political life and the political parties which believe in a democratic process. these are no the the terrorist groups of our like the ttp or other groups which we believe in militant sei. these are the groups that believe in a democratic process. nay have been declared -- [inaudible] one positive thing, if i may, that this group of five different religious political parties presented sunni groups in the sunni muslim -- [inaudible] all the different religious political parties are coming together. and this was the first opportunity this group had to rule a province. their policy created a space. they were not directly supporting militant sei of terrorism. not at all. but [inaudible] conservative narrow minded policies. are looking the other way when the militant groups -- [inaudible] that created the space for this -- [inaudible] between them. [inaudible] if you remember -- [inaudible] stop of connection with the groups what they did is starting moving to kbb and then -- [inaudible] moved on. it was the responsibility of the kbb problems to -- [inaudible] capability to stop them because the money all the investment was made not in the most civilly law enforcement. all [inaudible] the gap created that provided this opportunity for all of the kbb at any activity three of the points, one is about -- [inaudible] was indeed a successful operation. i think the military deserves credit for that. but i was just reading the latest figure of 2012, and it said they were about 17 major attacks from taliban groups that for -- [inaudible] 105 different fire fights. because some of those militants have gone to afghanistan. and this is a contentious issue. they are arguing some of the taliban are attacking pakistan or from the other side. it's a big issue. the stablization or the con sollization of the peace is not happened. there's a successful -- [inaudible] process going on about 2,000 of these militants are going through the process. it's one steady event. one important factor successful but not fully successful or transition. the history or the modern history of -- [inaudible] cannot be completed unless i salute two people especially. [inaudible] one is leading among a national party. a brave man who survived three attacks. and then he knew fully when the taliban would -- [inaudible] another icon that has taken a stand. as important as it is. as important it is to put five militant groups it's important to salute and appreciate all of the great and courageous people who are standing up to them. [inaudible] a leader who despite standing up. but the tragic parties that some of the leading police officers and one of the leading very pakistan police officer in the audience and i'm reminded of that. three senior famous police officers were killed in if they were standing up for them one by one. it creates this. so these are the important -- i think i finished my eight minutes or so. but i want to leave you with the idea. there was a successful case of -- [inaudible] the gains have to be consolidated. among the national party was because ordinary people of the province maa that aligns which i mentioned created that space. all of the people in pakistan -- [inaudible] problematic forces. but without -- [inaudible] without investment in education, [inaudible] will not be able to come out of the crisis it's in. 768 schools -- 58 schools bombed in the province in this period last year, 2012. i have not seen any major effort on the part of him political -- military government to do take up these major problems of education or infrastructure. -- [inaudible] thank you. >> thank you. i'm going focus on the afghan taliban, which is a completely different beast in the pakistani taliban. my chapter on kandahar, the one i'm going focus on that were covers 2002 to 2004 as the major period. the reason i did this, i believe the pattern of conflict we see today were locked in by 2004. and, you know, i went back before this and looked through the chapter and trying to think about what you know what could we glean from that period relevant for today? but i was surprised to see that in fact most of what most of the dynamics i takes plague on the ground in 2002 and 2003 in afghanistan and in kandahar are completely irrelevant for what is happening today. and what i see is happening today as two key questions that we need to sort of grapple with. the first is what happens with the u.s. leaves? if the u.s. leaves. and the second is, dot taliban want to negotiate? and for both of those questions, i think the chapter in this book, you know, it's useful in this regard. and there's a lot in there. the longest chapter, probably? but i'm going focus on the elements which speak directly to the two issues. and so after 2000, you know, they were routed and, you know, left in shame and defeat and the people of afghanistan welcomed that for the most part. al qaeda, if you would call it at the time, awent to pakistan and declared jihad and at the time watching this from afar i assumed the taliban had a essentially had the same position. that they were -- with the foreign occupiers. it was only after peter asked me to study kandahar and kandahar insurgency and going to kandahar and gap with what is going on there and i cam to a different conclusion than i originally thought. in short, after 2001, the taliban quit essentially. they had quit wholesale. and what, i mean, by that. the taliban -- the people who today substitute the insurgency from the leadership to the rank and file had quit and tried for the most part to engineer a series of deals with the afghan government are, or in some cases with the americans directly. and it's interesting because i dug up a quote, at the time in this is 2002. there were pakistani radical trying to drum up support for the fallen taliban and saying we need send money to the taliban so they can fight the occupiers. this is a quote from somebody who is relative a high ranking person in the taliban he said at the time if late 2001 he said we want to tell the people that the taliban system is no more. they should not give any donations in the name of the taliban. if the stable government is accomplished in afghanistan, we will bsh won't launch any action against it. and, you know, on one level it may seem surprising. on the other level if you look at the broad steep of afghan history. it's not surprising. what you see when you look at afghan history is a large number of factions fighting against each other that switch over the years and they're driive by the -- by survival. with the taliban particularly they took power in 1994 starting in kandahar. they displaced a lot of powerbrokers or war lords and gave them an option in the south. essentially, you know, submit to us and surround your weapons and sit at home and, you know, give up politics all together and we'll let you live. or if not we'll fight you. so some of them fled to pakistan and some stayed in afghanistan. and talking to the taliban leadership, a lot of them expected the same thing. in the 20022003 period. what you had in 2002, 2004 the entire leadership of of the taliban and talking the minister of entire your defense. information justice, foreign affairs. key front line commanders, key advisers for the supreme leader of the taliban cut deals with the afghan government. and in some cases attempt to cut deal with the u.s. and this hold for even the most ideological people in the taliban. one example is -- [inaudible] who is in the administrate ministry of justice and use one of the idea logs for the most draconian social policy for the taliban. so the whip wielding religious police and the people who check the -- et. even he surrendered and cut a deal with the afghan government in 2002. along with them are thousand of foot soldiers who did the same. and so there was ab opening there for a broad political settlement. unfortunately it didn't come to pass. this is why i think the years from 2002 to 2004 are relevant for with a is happening today. today is the question is whether the political settlement is in the cards or not. but what the taliban leadership found in 2002 and 2003 was that a settlement not in the cards. and instead every single deal that was engineered was at some point overturned. various different reasons. i'll give you an example. i mentioned the guy who is idea logs of the draconianism that took place. he turned himself in january of 2002 to the governor of kandahar province. and they did it arranged a deal through the triable intermediary. which is how it usually works in afghanistan. and the terms of the deal were that he would give rights to political life. he would surrender whatever assets had in terms of vehicle or et. cetera. he would retire to the home village, he would publicly pledge support for the afghan government, the karzai government and the american governments and he would agree to be sort of monitored by the afghan government. they would have somebody coming every week to the village. he retired to a life of preaching. now news of this came to d.c. and rumsfeld, familiar particularly and he was furious. you can look at the archives and see what people in the administration were saying about this. and the conception making deals with terrorist. that's unacceptable. so a loot of pressure was placed on the afghan government who engineered the deal and he went or his people went to him and said, we're under a lot of pressure. and cannot guarantee your safety here in afghanistan. you should go pakistan. he fled to pakistan. and this sort of -- this instance, this case was played out again and again in kandahar and around the country. another example which is particularly pertinent for today's -- [inaudible] he was former entire your minister under the taliban and also very important governor. and he was also a pub -- a triable hammed karzai. he had triable links to the karzai. after 2000 he had repudiated the taliban and seeking to find a way to join the afghan government and the karzis, essentially. and so he contacted hammed karzai's brother and he wanted to engineer a deal to see if there was a way to join the government. the meeting scheduled to take place on the border between afghanistan and pakistan. the pakistanis caught wind of this and they were none too pleased with the idea of taliban joining the karzai government and so they told the americans that he is in such and such place. and i believe they arrested him. handed him over to the americans and the americans have sent him to guantanamo. he's in guantanamo today. and he's a particularly interesting case because a lot of of the sort of talks about talks or negotiations sort of negotiations that are taking place are about prisoner releases from guantanamo. he's one of the five taliban prisoners that the taliban are seeking to release. so these are two examples. but, you know, you can go across the board and the chapter goes to a lot more detail. as it was happening on the leadership level, we also had on the rank and file level night raids, the afghan government was has been implicated in torture and human rights abuses, not just torch former toward taliban members and people whom the of afghans or the americans perceive to be the in the line to the taliban. clans, tribes, or communities which they have drawn recruits from. and through the processes, again, in some detail in the book, in the chapter on this. you a sense amongst people who either were once in the taliban or people who had been in communities which it was drawn. there was no space in the system in the post 2001 political system. the people like this and others relocated to pakistan and taliban was reinstituted. essentially. and having talked to a lot of these people what is striking to me is how relevant it seems to me today trying to understand whether the taliban are open to negotiations or not. in my ens, there's broadly speaking two camps in the taliban. one is people who are mostly political by political, i mean, they're not front lined commander on the ground in afghanistan leading fighters. there are people like former ministers of education. minister of culture, religious ideologues or people who in moammar's inner circle who recognize today. they tried to reconcile in 2002 and 2003. they recognize the tsh are not going to win the war. i think, you know, to me it's clear the taliban are not going win the war. they recognize that. and therefore coming out of the very practical need. there's an opening or they have sort of orientation trying to find -- and ten or fifteen people today who are taliban leadership and there's, you know, a dozen people who are in -- [inaudible] open a couple of people in turkey and anemia pakistan right now. and so that's, to me, institutes one sort of click, very informally. a click of taliban leadership. and a second grouping is i think the military side. people 0 who are actually they themselves not be on the ground in afghanistan leading fighters. they are the ones directing insurgety on the day-to-day level. these are people who either for the most part distrust the u.s.' associations and negotiated settlement or in talking with some of the them, they freebtly pointed to 2002 and 2004 period and say look what happened the last time we try to reconcile and some of the people are people who try to cut deals with the americans in 2003 and 2002 and rebuffed and now on the military side. there's a sense among the people that we'll wait out the americans in 2014. and talking to them, there's a sense they believe they can reinstitute the '90s taliban. i think that's a "fantasy," they believe they are close to that and, you know, they hold on a little bit longer. they can do that. and so i should say the cat gore -- [inaudible] you shouldn't -- [inaudible] ways to understand the different position of the taliban. and talking to all of these people in the taliban and ordinary afghans. these are heavy focus on numbers. and, you know, karzai's probably landed today. in the u.s. and going to be talk about whether it's 6,000 or 9,000 or 3,000 troops in afghanistan. that's important and a lot of rural afghans in the villages where the war is being fought would say we want zero troops. but there's another question that i would like to raise. something i think in my discussion with the taliban. they don't think about it. nor with most other people who are actually thinking about these in afghanistan, which is we're facing today in afghanistan is a question of state formation. it's similar to the question we're facing in 2004 to 2002. i think some of these findings in the chapter are useful. and what, i mean, by that is i believe that the u.s. has never seriously attempted to build the afghan state. if you look at the 2002 to 2004 period, what happened is on one hand they poured money, expertise in to the center, in to kabul to scar -- karzai's government. at the same time we had a number of independent and unilateral agreements, people -- this would be for example, the governor of kandahar in 2002. or, you know, there's a serious of private maliciouses that were funded and supported. while we were putting money in to create the afghan police, we were also giving money to the governor of kandahar for him to maintain the private militia. they don't answer to the afghan government. they answer to the governor alone. you can't create state in -- you usually think a state in the basic definition of the body that has the monopoly. there's a serious of actions that exist around the country from 2002 to today which include the formation of viable state. to give an example. there are probably 100 maybe 200 military bases scattered u.s. military bases scattered around the country in afghanistan. each of those, or most of those, require afghan militiamen to guard. these are not afghan police or army. these are irregular militia man who we caught private security contractors to guard. to supply each of the bases we require a convoy that need to be protected from insurgent attack and the people who protect them are again militia men war lords. each much them are being paid directly by the u.s. military or being paid indirectly by the department of defense through the various sub contracting regimes. so there's been various estimates how many people are actually exist. we're talking, you know, if you include the privacy security contractors in kabul maybe 50 or 60,000 young men who are have arms. who do not fall under the afghan's government purview whatsoever. they owe the excision ens entirely to foreign patriot. the question is what happens when the money stops going? along with them, the afghan state itself. the afghan state doesn't collect the revenue through taxation. it connects there through foreign patron patronage. what happens when the money stops? we have one case that we can look to, which was in the '80s, this is very already to what the russians or the soviets had. they had militia or afghan government had mash listsha around the country. they flowed from mouse cow to kabul to the procheses. the russians left afghanistan in 1989. but the civil war started in 1992. and it started? 1992 because the money stopped flowing in 1992. these are the question i think we face. you can draw the questions out i think from the chapter. tounge thank new america and steve. i do want to reemphasize the point peter made when you read any of the chapters that aman has written. you center to read look at the references more so than with your average chapter. they are incredible. my task in this effort was to step back and look at the bigger picture. and one of the things that came out of that process when we were originally pulling together the chapters and these chapters hold up over time as a aman said. i think some of the basic dynamics are still there even as conditions have changed. the individuals and permits have been killed. some of the political dynamics have changed a little bit. but fundamentally you see the same issues that play. and so semantically when we were pulling them together there was a decision we made between the afghan taliban and pakistani taliban. that's something that the i thought at the time was a sort of false construct that gave us that created a false detics that on secured the cross pollination between the groups and didn't sheet shed a lot of on the strategic differences between them. you see a new version of that in the last couple of days where there's been reporting in our newspapers about the drone strike that killed a taliban commander. so if you look at the headline he's been referred to as good to be. whether or not it's a taliban figure they tacks the taliban state. it's a critical question. it is important. it's ignorement of judgment also obscures a lot of complex ity we need to be considering when we think about the folks. after all, smart people in the u.s. government decided that he wasn't all that good of a taliban. whenever you sit on drone strikes there are smart people that think he deserved one. what are the questions should be asking about the groups. i'm going run through the six we identified when the chapters were written. i think they still hold up. the other thing i would point out is that a slight tweet of the questions should be used in all settings where we have militants associated with al qaeda. and taliban is not al qaeda. they are associated with al qaeda. i think that when we have local groups that are associated with a transnational militant organization there is a aversion of the questions needed to be asked whether it's in syria, north africa or mali or whenever. the better solution, six questions. the first one is the key strategic question that the good versus bad taliban gets. does the militant group attack pakistan. the reason why it's fundamental are local environment and fundamentally frameses how they are going to be interacting with the organization that has the most power on the ground which is still the pakistani military. if we look at the governor, for example, this is somebody that did over time generally have a more positive relationship with the pakistani government than ore militants. he came to power in 2004, only after a previous drone strike killed the primary rival, at the time he was in a pakistani prison, which i don't know how to put it. allows for a lot of negotiation with the pakistan state. he was released and sort of took a leading role among the -- [inaudible] so, you know, he was ended by a drone strike. the leadership started with the drone strike as well. second question is what are the groups triable and social roots? right this is aquÍ question. while we tend to look at conflicts in term of how these o
Feb 8, 2013 11:05pm PST
importance of internet access, foreign policy we're great at saying, "make sure internet is everywhere." domestically, for some reason, we haven't done so well. so i see internet access as the heart of a democratic society. >> you use that merger of comcast and nbcuniversal as the window in your book into what this power can do to the aspirations of a democratic internet. >> federal regulators today approved the purchase by comcast of a majority stake in nbcuniversal from general electric. this merger will create a $30 billion media company with cable, broadcast, internet, motion picture and theme park components. the deal is expected to close by the end of the month. >> you say that the merger between comcast and nbcuniversal represented a new frightening moment in u.s. regulatory history. how so? >> comcast is not only the nation's largest broadband distributor with tens of millions of customers, it also now owns and controls one of the four media conglomerates in america, nbcuniversal. that means that it has a built-in interest in making sure that it shapes discourse, controls progr
Feb 9, 2013 12:45pm EST
is kind of a big deal. for anyone who is -- pays attention to american foreign policy and military affairs you know that ever since the attacks on this country on 9/11 the united states has had to evolve militarily and in the intelligence community to meet the challenge of this new enemy and more than anyone i can think of, general mcchrystal has been responsible for shaping the evolution and developing what i call the targeting engine which is what we adopted as the primary method of defending the country. thank you for being here, great to see you. >> thanks for two kind introduction. i thought of you as a nonfiction writer but you have gone into fiction now. >> you were the commander of special operations in iraq and afghanistan and there have been a rapid evolution. i am familiar from writing blackhawk down the way things were nearly 90s. can you give us an idea of the overall strategy that has evolved and we will get to specifics but also the tactics you have developed? >> a group of people did. thanks. taking it back a little bit at the end of the vietnam war as america has d
Feb 9, 2013 5:00pm EST
multinationals use his political and economic power to basically dictate food and foreign policy. they speak with one voice in the side with the pesticide regulation should be, what nutrition labeling is, every aspect of our food system and partnered with the biotech industry which is also so powerful that it can basically by public policy. there was a report last year on the biotech industry. it turns out there are 100 biotech companies lobbying full time. of those, they have hired 13 former members of congress and 300 former staffers of the white house and congress. the biotechnology industry has a lot of clouds. and wal-mart's is partnering up in some ways. one of the ways was recently with engineering "genetically engineered sweet corn. ..
Feb 9, 2013 10:00am EST
continued, but expanded dramatically and it is the lasting legacy of foreign policy. >> and that leave mes with the question because of so many ideological differences of president obama and president bush, but not on this. it suggests possibilities that presidents are just presidents and they always expand their kind of war powers which is one possibility, and the other is that the president nose something that i don't know about what constitutes threats to the national security, and the third is that well, on this one question, this president is just as hawk ish as george w. bush and any way to adjudicate the possibilities of what war means to the obama administration? >> well, i think that, i think that is absolutely right, it has been a continuation of the bush administration policies, and yes, administrations always try to push the outer bounds of the authority. but one thank is clear is that the laws of war have not changed even if the practice has changed. there are really three reasons that a country can, a state can use force outside of its borders. one, if it is the victim of
Feb 9, 2013 5:05am PST
rattling the cages of powerful people who would rather you not read them. here's the first one. "captive audience: the telecom industry and monopoly power in the new gilded age," by susan crawford. read it and you'll understand why we americans are paying much more for internet access than people in many other countries and getting much less in return. that, despite the fact that our very own academics and engineers, working with our very own defense department, invented the internet in the first place. back then, the u.s. was in the catbird seat, poised to lead the world down this astonishing new superhighway of information and innovation. now many other countries offer their citizens faster and cheaper access than we do. the faster high-speed access comes through fiber optic lines that transmit data in bursts of laser light, but many of us are still hooked up to broadband connections that squeeze digital information through copper wire. we're stuck with this old-fashioned technology because, as susan crawford explains, our government has allowed a few giant conglomerates to rig the rules, raise prices, and stifle competition. just like standard oil in the first gilded age a century ago. in those days, it was muckrakers like ida tarbell and lincoln steffens rattling the cages and calling for fair play. today it's independent thinkers like susan crawford. the big telecom industry wishes she would go away, but she's got a lot of people on her side. in fact, if you go to the white house citizen's petition site, you'll see how fans of "captive audience" are calling on the president to name susan crawford as the next chair of the federal communications commission. "prospect" magazine named her one of the "top ten brains of the digital future," and susan crawford served for a time as a special assistant to president obama for science, technology and innovation. right now she teaches communications law at the benjamin cardozo school of law here in new york city and is a fellow at the roosevelt institute. susan crawford, welcome. >> thank you so much. >> "captive audience?" who's the captive? >> us, all of us. what's happened is that these enormous telecommunications companies, comcast and time warner on the wired side, verizon and at&t on the wireless side, have divided up markets, put themselves in the position where they're subject to no competition and no oversight from any regulatory authority. and they're charging us a lot for internet access and giving us second class access. this is a lot like the electrification story from the beginning of the 20th century. initially electricity was viewed as a luxury. so when f.d.r. came in, 90% of farms didn't have electricity in america at the same time that kids in new york city were playing with electric toys. and f.d.r. understood how important it was for people all over america to have the dignity and self-respect and sort of cultural and social and economic connection of an electrical outlet in their home. so he made sure to take on the special interests that were controlling electricity then who had divided up markets and consolidated just the way internet guys have today, he made sure that we made this something that every american had. >> but we are a long way from f.d.r., the new deal and those early attitudes toward industry. what makes you think that's relevant now when you come to the internet? >> you know, this is an issue about which people have a lot of passion because it touches them in their daily lives. "the wall street journal" on the front page had an article about kids needing to go to mcdonald's to do their homework because they don't have an internet connection at home. parents around the country know that their kids can't get an adequate education without internet access. you can't apply for a job these days without going online. you can't get access to government benefits adequately, you can't start a business. this feels to 300 million americans like a utility, like something that's just essential for life. and the issue of how it's controlled and how expensive it is and how few americans actually sign up for it is not really on the radar screen. >> you describe this frankly as a crisis in communication with similarity, you say, to the banking crisis and global warming. what makes it a crisis? >> it's a crisis for us because we're not quite aware of the rest of the world. americans tend to think of themselves as just exceptional. and we're -- >> well, we did invent the internet, didn't we? >> we did, but that was generation one. generation two, we're being left far behind. and so all the new things that are going on in the world, america won't be part of that unless we are able to communicate. so there's a darkness descending because of this expensive and relatively slow internet access in america. we're also leaving behind a third of americans. a third of us. >> in here you call it the digital divide. describe that to me. >> well, here's the problem. for 19 million americans, many in rural areas, you can't get access to a high speed connection at any price, it's just not there. for a third of americans, they don't subscribe often because it's too expensive. so the rich are getting gouged, the poor are very often left out. and this means that we're creating yet again two americas and deepening inequality through this communications inequality. >> so is this why, according to numbers released by the department of commerce, only four out of ten households with annual household incomes below $25,000 reported having wired internet access at home compared with 93% of households with incomes exceeding $100,000? these companies are not providing cheap enough access to the poor folks in this country? >> these are good american companies. their profit motives though don't line up with our social needs to make sure that everybody gets access. they're not in the business of making sure that everybody has reasonably priced internet access. that's how a utility functions. that's the way we need to treat this commodity. they're in the business right now of finding rich neighborhoods and harvesting, just making more and more money from the same number of people. they're doing really well at that. comcast is now a $100 billion company. they're bigger than mcdonald's, they're bigger than home depot. but they're not providing this deep social need of connection that every other country is taking seriously. >> and you make the point that the united states itself is beginning to experience this digital divide in the world. >> it's fair to say that the u.s. at the best is in the middle of the pack when it comes to both the speed and cost of high speed internet access connections. so in hong kong right now you can get a 500 megabit symmetric connection that's unimaginably fast from our standpoint for about 25 bucks a month. in seoul, for $30 you get three choices of different providers of fiber in your apartment. and they come in and install in a day because competition's so fierce. in new york city there's only one choice, and it's 200 bucks a month for a similar service. and you can't get that kind of fiber connection outside of new york city in many parts of the country. verizon's only serving about 10% of americans. so let's talk about the wireless side for a moment, you know, the separate marketplace that people use for mobility. in europe you can get unlimited texting and voice calls and data for about $30 a month, similar service from verizon costs $90 a month. that's a huge difference. >> why is there such a disparity there? >> the difference in all of these areas is competition and government policy. it's not magical. without the intervention of the government there's no reason for these guys to charge us anything reasonable or to make sure that everybody has services. >> how do you explain that in the course of one generation, from the invention of the internet in this country to falling way behind as you say the rest of the world in our access to internet? how did that happen? >> beginning in the early 2000's we believed that the magic of the market would provide internet access to all americans. that the cable guys would compete with the phone guys who would compete with wireless and that somehow all of this ferment would make sure that we kept up with the rest of the world. those assumptions turned out not to be true. it's much cheaper to upgrade a cable connection than it is to dig up a copper phone line and replace it with fiber. so the cable guys who had these franchises in many, most american cities, they are in place with a status quo network that 94% of new subscriptions are going to. everybody's signing up with their local cable incumbent. there is not competition for 80% of americans. they don't have a choice for a truly high speed connection. it's just the local cable guy. competition has just vanished. >> well, the 1996 telecommunications act was supposed to promote competition and therefore protect the consumer by bringing prices down. that didn't happen? >> that didn't happen because it's so much cheaper to upgrade the cable line than it is to dig up the copper and replace it with fiber. the competition evaporated because wall street said to the phone companies, "don't do this, don't be in this business." so you may think of verizon and at&t as wired phone companies, they're not. they've gone into an entirely separate market which is wireless. they're the monsters on the wireless side that control two-thirds of that market. so there's been a division. cable takes wired, verizon/at&t take wireless. they're actually cooperating. there's a federally blessed non-compete in the form of a joint marketing agreement between comcast and verizon. and so the world is perfect for them, not so great for consumers who are paying more than other people in the rest of the world for slower service. >> since the 1996 telecommunications act which i thought was going to lower the price of our monthly cable bill, it's almost doubled. >> well, that's because time warner controls manhattan. there's no competition. the cable guys, long ago, something they call "the summer of love," divided up -- >> the summer of love? >> yeah. they clustered their operations. it makes sense from their standpoint. "you take san francisco, i'll take sacramento. you take chicago, i'll take boston." and so comcast and time warner are these giants that never enter each other's territories. >> you talk to certain people and they say, "look, i don't know what this is about. i have all the gizmos i want. i have a smartphone, i have a tablet," and they say, "what's the crisis? because i have more access than i can use." >> there are a lot of bright shiny objects that are confusing people about the underlying market dynamics here. what people don't realize is that for this wireless access you're paying too much and the coverage is too spotty. on the wired side, that's where we're really being left behind. and here's the important tie to understand. a wireless connection is just the last 50 feet of a wire. so fiber policy is really wireless policy. these two things fit together. and if the whole country did an upgrade to cheap fiber everywhere we'd get better connection for everybody. right now though if a mayor wants to do this for himself he'll be pummeled by the incumbents. in almost 20 states in america it's either illegal or very difficult for municipalities to make this decision for themselves. >> in north carolina a couple of years ago lobbyists for time warner persuaded the state legislature to make it almost impossible, virtually impossible for municipalities to get their own utility, right? >> that's exactly right. and so now north carolina, after being beaten up by the incumbents is at the near the bottom of broadband rankings for the united states. >> and what's the practical consequence of that? >> all those students in north carolina, all those businesses that otherwise would be forming, they don't have adequate connections in their towns to allow this to happen. they've got -- they're subject to higher and higher pricing. they're being gouged. >> your book did underscore for me why this is so important to democracy, to the functioning of our political system, to our role as a self-governing free people. talk about that a moment. why do you see this so urgently in terms of our practically dysfunctional democracy today? >> we need to be able to speak to each other effectively and effectively to government. we need to empower our citizens to feel dignified and ready to cope in the 21st century. having a communications system that knits the country together is not just about economic growth. it's about the social fabric of the country. and a country that feels as if it can move together and trust each other is one that is more democratic. as a matter of national policy we have forced other countries to talk about the importance of internet access, foreign policy we're great at saying, "make sure internet is everywhere." domestically, for some reason, we haven't done so well. so i see internet access as the heart of a democratic society. >> you use that merger of comcast and nbcuniversal as the window in your book into what this power can do to the aspirations of a democratic internet. >> federal regulators today approved the purchase by comcast of a majority stake in nbcuniversal from general electric. this merger will create a $30 billion media company with cable, broadcast, internet, motion picture and theme park components. the deal is expected to close by the end of the month. >> you say that the merger between comcast and nbcuniversal represented a new frightening moment in u.s. regulatory history. how so? >> comcast is not only the nation's largest broadband distributor with tens of millions of customers, it also now owns and controls one of the four media conglomerates in america, nbcuniversal. that means that it has a built-in interest in making sure that it shapes discourse, controls programming all in the service of its own profit-making machine. as both the distributor and a content provider, it's in its interest to make sure that it can always charge more for discourse we would think isn't controlled by anybody. so it's a tremendous risk to the country that we have this one actor who has no interest in the free flow of information controlling so much of high speed internet access. >> you say the merger created the largest vertically integrated distributor of information in the country. so what's the practical consequence of comcast having this control over its content? >> here's the consequence. comcast with the control over its programming, and also because it works so closely with the very concentrated programming industry, can raise the costs of any rival coming in to provide let's say competitive fiber access. so google in kansas city is having real trouble getting access to sports content because time warner cable, the local monopoly player there, controls that sports content. so google or any other competitive fiber provider has to enter two markets at once. one market to provide the transport, the fiber, and then also the programming market. and making programming more expensive is yet another barrier to entry. and comcast can carry that out now. >> so what should the f.c.c. do about that? >> this is a moment when we have to separate out content from conduit. it should not be possible for a local cable actor or any distributor to withhold programming based on volume. that's what's going on. the programmers say, "we'll sell to comcast cheaply 'cause they're big. but if you're an upstart we're going to charge you three to four times what comcast is paying for the same programming." that should not be legal. everybody should get access to the same stuff at the same price and they should be announced prices. >> what about the argument that in this modern world there are certain industries, certain markets, that require an economy of scale. critics have said that you're ignoring the sophisticated economics that govern these industries. >> the economics of these networks did not change when we added a little bit of digital pixie dust to them. it's still very expensive to build these networks. private actors still don't have an interest in covering everybody because that's too much of an economic risk for them. the better route is sensible oversight. we can learn from our mistakes in the past when it came to regulatory regimes that didn't work. but a regulatory regime is needed without question to make this work for all americans. >> i have to say this is pretty strong stuff. listen to yourself. "instead of ensuring that everyone in america can compete in a global economy, instead of narrowing the divide between rich and poor, instead of supporting competitive free markets for american inventions that use information, instead that is of ensuring that america will lead the world in the u.s. in the information age, u.s. politicians have chosen to keep comcast and its fellow giants happy." >> for the last 30 years the rhetoric of the market being the thing we all aspire to has in a sense become the collective vision in america. our politicians aren't separate from that kind of understanding. i think they believe that it's better to have government stay out of industry. in this particular place no government intervention is actually disaster for the country because we leave so many people behind, we subject ourselves to the informational control of just a few giants. the problem for the politicians is that there's no upside right now to fighting back. if they do they'll lose their campaign contributions. we need to get the public interested in this so that politicians will understand that they're not acting alone. >> in your last chapter you describe what happened in lafayette, louisiana when the city decided it wanted the very kind of internet access you're talking about. and a few years ago, my colleagues and i did a documentary called "net @ risk" in which we looked at the threat to internet access. and we went to lafayette and lo and behold they're doing exactly what you're describing in your book. >> we have an out-migration problem with our young people from louisiana, and i felt it was time for politicians to quit talking and do something. >> something like building every home and business in town its own fiber optic connection to the information superhighway. >> we see telecommunications in the way of internet, in the way of fiber connectivity as something that should be available to everyone. >> just like water, sewer, electricity, telephone. i mean it all falls into that same lump. >> i think this is a tremendous opportunity for small business and to attract business here. >> so what the city decided to do was build its own fiber network through its municipal power and water company, lafayette utility systems or l.u.s. >> how did they get away with it in lafayette when as you say they didn't in north carolina? >> persistence of a mayor who very much focused on this and said, "we're going to get this done." and there wasn't a statute at that point at the state level making it illegal. municipalities have a lot of assets at their disposal. they control the rights of way, the access to their streets and their poles that people need in order to build these networks. they can condition access to those rights of way on a particular network being built. stockholm did this. they say, "look, you can come in and build a fiber network as long as it's a wholesale, nondiscriminatory really fast fiber network connecting our hospitals and schools and police departments. and then you have to let anybody else connect to it." not that hard, you just draft an r.f.p., request for proposals, and the city can do that using its control over its rights of way. cities often also have access to this long term low rate financing. they can put their good name behind a bond issue and make sure that it gets paid back by the subscriptions to the network over time. it's a great investment for the city, and that's what lafayette found out. >> so how is the consumer in lafayette situated differently from me here in manhattan with one cable service? >> in comparison to where you are in manhattan where there's no government intervention at all, in lafayette the municipality is acting as a steward, standing up for you. it is in fact government's role to stand up against the ethic that might makes right. in most of america there is no government factor keeping these bullies from charging us whatever they want. >> you describe something in your book that we've talked about often at this table. quote, "the constant easy, friendly flow between government and industry in the communications world centered around washington d.c." describe that world. >> it's a warm pond of familiarity. everybody knows everybody else. they're all very nice people, you'd like to have a drink with them. they go from a job inside the regulator to a job in industry to a job on the hill, one easy flow, nice people. outsiders have no impact on this particular world. and it would be -- i talked to a cable representative not long ago about the need to change this regulatory state of affairs. and she looked at me and said, "but that would be so disruptive." and she's right, it would be disruptive. >> well, you know, the f.c.c. was supposed to be the cop on the beat of the communications world. but for example michael powell, who served as fcc chairman for four years in the mid-2000s, is now the cable and telecom industry's top d.c. lobbyist. meredith attwell baker who was one of the f krchcc commissiones who approved comcast's merger with nbcuniversal, left the agency four months later to join comcast as a highly paid lobbyist. that move infuriated media groups. >> but that warm pond of familiarity in washington sees this as absolutely normal behavior. just yesterday the former chief of staff of the fcc left to be the general counsel of a regulated company. it happens all the time. and so in order to change this you'd have to make regulation of this area not be carried out by such a focused agency. right now, the fcc's asymmetry of information is striking. they only talk to the industry. the community is all so close. in order to break that up you'd have to make sure you had a broad based agency seeing lots of different industries. >> about the time i was reading your book i also read a speech by the present chair of the fcc, julius genachowsk i. he said, "the united states is in a global bandwidth race. a nation's future economic security is tied to frictionless and speedy access to information." if you were chair of the fcc what would you do to move us forward? >> i know that it's important to let these municipalities make decisions for themselves. that's going to take a bill in congress preempting the terrible state laws like the one that happened in north carolina. we need to make self-determination possible for cities. and the second one is making sure that there's low cost, low rate financing available to build these networks. that's the stumbling block, making sure that you can actually build without needing to put up all the money yourself. because it pays out over time, it pays out as a social investment for the country. and then finally, changing all those rules at the fcc that are getting in the way of progress. >> so briefly describe the need. >> all americans need a fast, cheap connection to the internet. >> and the problem? >> a few companies control access in america and it's not in their interest to bring that fast, cheap access to us all. >> and the solution? >> the solution is for people to care about this issue, ask hard questions at every debate, make sure you elect people who will act and give your mayor air cover so that he or she can act to make sure that your city has this fast, competitive access. >> the book is "captive audience: the telecom industry and monopoly power in the gilded age." susan crawford, i've enjoyed this conversation. thank you for being with me. >> thank you so much. ♪ >> just like susan crawford, my next guest has been driven to tell a story the powers-that-be would rather we forget. he found it by chance in documents buried deep in the recesses of the national archives in our nation's capital. the discovery led him on a journey of twelve years that has now concluded with this beautifully written account of ugly horrors, "kill anything that moves: the real american war in vietnam," by nick turse. as all of us know, there have been many memorable accounts of the terrible things done in vietnam, memoirs, histories, documentaries and movies. but nick turse has given us a fresh holistic work that stands alone for its blending of history and journalism, for the integrity of research brought to life through the diligence of first-person interviews. those interviews skillfully unlock the memories of american warriors and expose the wounds that to this day scar the hearts and minds of villagers who survived the scorched earth of vietnam. here is a powerful message for us today, a reminder of what war really costs. ironically, nick turse wasn't even around as the vietnam war raged. he was born in 1975, the year it ended. not until 25 years later, while pursuing his phd in sociomedical sciences, did he discover the secret trove of documents that sent him on this long search. in addition to two earlier books and countless articles and essays, nick turse is managing editor of -- the indispensable website if you want the news powerful people would prefer to keep hidden. nick turse, welcome. >> thanks so much for having me on. >> of the more than 30,000 nonfiction books that have been published since the end of the war, this is one of the toughest. how did you come to write it? you weren't even born until the year the war ended in 1975. >> i really stumbled upon this project. i was a graduate student when i began it. i was working on a project on post-traumatic stress disorder among u.s. vietnam veterans. and i would go down to the national archives. just outside of d.c. i was looking for hard data to match up with, you know, self-report material, what veterans told us about their service. and on one of these trips, i was down there for about two weeks. and about every research avenue that i had pursued was a dead end. and i finally went to an archivist that i worked with there. and i said to him, "i can't go back to my boss empty-handed. i need something, at least a lead." and he, you know, said a few words to me that really changed my life. he said, "do you think that witnessing war crimes could cause post-traumatic stress?" and i said, "you know, that's an excellent hypothesis. what do you have on war crimes?" and within an hour, i was going through a collection of boxes, thousands and thousands of pages of documents. to call it, you know, an information treasure trove is the wrong phrase. it was a horror trove. these were reports of massacres, murders, mutilation, torture. and these were investigations that were carried out by the u.s. military during the war. a collection of documents called the vietnam war crimes working group collection. and this was a taskforce that was set up in the pentagon. and it was designed to track war crimes cases in the wake of the exposure of the my lai massacre. >> where 500 men, women, and children were murdered by american g.i.s. >> that's right. the military basically, what they wanted to do was make sure they were never caught flatfooted again by an atrocity scandal. so in the army chief of staff's office, there were a number of army colonels who worked to track all war crimes allegations that bubbled up into the media that gis and recently returned veterans were making public. and they tracked all these. and whenever they could, they tried to tamp down these allegations. >> your book is very important to me. i was there at the white house in the 1960s when president johnson escalated the war. my own great regret is that i didn't see the truth of the war in time didn't see what was happening there. and yet, as i said, you didn't even come to the experience until after it was all over. and yet you have become obsessed with telling this story. you had no money. you had no advance. you didn't, you had no means of support when you left graduate school to do this. >> that's right. but i thought that this story was, i really thought it was just too important. then i traveled the country, spoken to american witnesses. >> there are 80 pages of notes in here, tiny little notes. you seem almost determined that nobody would accuse you of not having sourced the information. >> well, i know that this it's not a popular narrative of the war. and you know, it's they're hard truths. and i know it's you know, there are a lot of people who are predisposed to disbelieve this. it is in many cases, it's shocking. and it's hard to believe. this isn't the type of warfare that most americans think that their fellow americans pursue. so i wanted to make sure that it was documented as meticulously as i could. and this is the story of vietnam veterans told by vietnam veterans. i used you know, hundreds of sworn statements, sworn testimony that active duty g.i.s and recently returned veterans gave to army criminal investigators. so it's the veterans in their own words. >> but let me play for you what john kerry said back in 1971, when he returned from vietnam and he joined with other vietnam veterans to talk about the kind of war they had experienced. here's what he said. >> not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. it is impossible to the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in vietnam. but they did. they relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. they told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of genghis khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of south vietnam. >> all these years later, this book you've been working on for ten years, based upon these documents buried at the national archives, confirmed what john kerry was saying then. >> all the atrocities that kerry mentions by name there i found evidence of all of those types of crimes represented in the records of this vietnam war crimes working group in the government's own files. so at the same time that -- you know, that kerry and the veterans that he was referring to there were being smeared as fake veterans or as liars, the military had all these records that proved that these were just the very crimes that were going on in vietnam. >> and the military had these records in 2004, when john kerry was being swiftboated. >> that's right. you know, these records existed then. there was proof at the time that the military they knew about it and they didn't disclose it to the public. and it was still, you know, under wraps when he was running. the military definitely didn't want these records out there. i talked to several members of this vietnam war crimes working group, this pentagon taskforce. and i asked one of the colonels, who he ended up retiring as a general. and he says that, at the time, he thought it was right that these records need to be kept secret. it was for the good of the country, for the good of the war effort, but in the years since, he recognized that he thought it was the wrong thing to do. i talked to him during the iraq war. and he said, you know, "perhaps if these things had been aired at the time, if we had been honest with the american people and open with these records, then maybe we wouldn't have had abu ghraib -- you know, the torture scandal there." he came to see it as a real failing on his part. >> what kind of reception did you get when you went out to call on these veterans who had been there, whose testimony was included in these secret files and who must have been disturbed when this young reporter calls and said, "i'd like to talk to the two of you about war crimes in vietnam"? >> there were times when i had a door slammed shut in my face or the phone slammed down on the receiver. but most of the time veterans were willing to talk. and a lot of them told me that they were -- they were happy to talk about it, in some ways. even if we were talking about, you know, horrific events -- you know? a lot of them said that they couldn't tell their families about this. you know? it's not something they were able to talk about. but i knew something of their experience. and they were willing to walk that road with me. >> there was a medic, jamie henry, who seems to epitomize the stories of everyone else with whom you've talked. tell me about jamie henry. >> yeah, jamie had a tremendous impact on my life. and -- you know, i found him through this collection of records to begin with. and then i sought him out. and jamie was drafted and became a medic and a very good one. the men who served with him said that he was among the best soldiers that they had served with. he saved a lot of american lives. and they really lauded his performance in the field. but jamie saw things in vietnam that really disturbed him. he told me that on his first day in the field, he watched as the point man, the lead man of his patrol stopped a young girl on a trail and molested her right there. and, you know, jamie said to himself, you know, "my god, what's going on here?" and over the next several months, he just saw a litany of atrocities take place. he watched a young boy who was just -- you know, detained and beaten and shot dead for no reason, an old man who was used for target pr
Feb 9, 2013 6:00pm EST
indiana. she was really the intellect in the group of nurses, very well read on foreign policy. eleanor tended to keep her intellect quiet and her thoughts -- she was the one who knew the japanese were going to come, but said nothing. and the interesting thing about eleanor is after surrender, she kept a diary, but not of her own thoughts and feelings; she copied poetry from the famous poets and from aristotle, various thoughts that captured what she felt. so it's a fascinating diary. c-span: is she alive? >> guest: no. eleanor died about three years ago. c-span: did you talk to her? >> guest: i did. a friend of mine spent a lot of time with her. i had difficulty getting out to indiana for -- there was a -- for financial reasons. and a friend of mine went out and did all the interviews for her. c-span: and who is this right here? >> guest: oh, that's red harrington, or mrs. mary nelson. she lived nearby here in virginia. she was a navy nurse, and she was as beautiful as a movie star when she was a young woman. mary, or red as they called her, was a real spirited young woman, met her fut
Feb 9, 2013 7:00am EST
percussions to u.s. foreign policy around the world. host: our next call comes from minnesota on our line for democrats. caller: i would like to speak to comments about how people feel about the world who have had these drones tracks, the service men who see this happening around them. what i feel about the throne strikes for killing -- drones tried for killing americans overseas -- drone strikes for killing americans, i have empathy with these drones strikes occur and i hope nobody is killed or hurt. it is not just foreigners who were killing the best we are killing with drones. we are killing americans -- who we are killing which drones. we are killing americans to if they are traitors. i hope they understand-- too if they are traitors. host: does it matter if it is a u.s. citizen or a foreign national it started in the stunted killings -- in these targeted killings? guest: americans have been less concerned with it has not been americans. that raises questions that did not exist under the american constitution. foreigners outside the united states do not have constitutional rights
Feb 9, 2013 2:00pm EST
assassination. >> vick, here's the thing, if targeted killings were a part of u.s. foreign policy for decades which many acknowledge they have, how is this different? >> targeted killings have not been part of the u.s. policy for decades. they were engaged in up until the 70s, the congress stepped up and president ford put a ban in place and they only reappeared after 9/11 because of the threat we now find ourselves in. so they're not something that we are used to doing. we are used to killing people in war, but weir not used to sending secret operatives or secret drones around the world, naming an individual person and deciding he's worthy of death and killing him. that is new and post-9/11 stuff and president obama is the person who upped the ante on this. >> what happens when another nation acquires and uses the same drone technology that we've been talking about and they exercise little to no restraint? >> you don't need a drone. all you need is a rifle. this is the sort of policy that you can apply to any sort of situation. the technology is the secondary question and once you decide tha
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)